RE TRUONG THI THANH HUYEN

CACV 920/2025, [2026] HKCA 734

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 4666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 920 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1304/2020)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Leung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Levy (“the Judge”) dated 13 October 2025[1] (“the Leave Decision”) refusing leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review[2] was that of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 26 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 23 September 2019 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim was dismissed.

2.  The applicant is a Vietnamese national. Her personal background, basis of claim and the Board’s reasons were set out in the Board’s Decision[3] as well as the Leave Decision at [3]. They will not be repeated.

3.  The applicant did not request for an oral hearing of her leave application. After considering the documents filed by the applicant, the Judge dismissed the application for the reasons stated in [5]-[10] of the Leave Decision.

Appeal to this Court

4.  In her Notice of Appeal filed on 23 October 2025, the applicant stated that she would face the risk of being killed or harmed by her creditor over her unpaid debts should she be refouled to Vietnam. She contended that she would not be able to internally relocate in Vietnam, as there would be “no guarantee that [she] will be able to adapt to the new place and find a job to earn money”. She also alleged, as against the Director of Immigration, that her human rights were not considered under the Basic Law / Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act / International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights / International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but without identifying the provisions.

5.  The requirement for lodging of skeleton submissions in an appeal is prescribed by Practice Direction 4.1. Compliance with such requirement on the part of an applicant is important for the proper and effective functioning of our appeal process. Nowadays, this Court no longer permits unfocused oral presentation of material at an oral hearing. In view of the heavy demand on the Court’s time due to the large volume of appeals, in recent times this Court has taken a firm stance on the requirement to lodge skeleton submissions. Non-compliance with such requirement is treated as the abandonment of the right to an oral hearing.

6.  In breach of the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals in line with the above, the applicant failed to lodge skeleton submissions with the Court, despite being warned that the hearing date would be vacated and the appeal dealt with on paper in the event of non-compliance. The hearing date on 1 April 2026 was therefore vacated, and the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submission. We therefore deal with the appeal on paper on the basis of the materials already filed with the Court.

Discussion

7.  The relevant legal principles governing appeals in non‑refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal will only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.

8.  The Court’s role is not to examine the decision maker’s decision afresh as if it were a fresh application for judicial review. Nor is an appeal the occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge or for running arguments which could and should have been raised but were not raised before the judge. In the determination of an appeal, the Court of Appeal focuses on the decision of the judge and the Court will only reverse that decision if an appellant could demonstrate that the judge made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before the judge or was otherwise plainly wrong.

9.  In this appeal, assertions by the applicant of fear, if refouled, do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. In any event, the assertions have been considered by the Director and the Board. The assessment of evidence, Country of Origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The Court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022 at [13].

10.  The applicant claims that if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor by reason the non-payment of outstanding debts. The Board took the view that the applicant was an incredible witness, who fabricated her claims and “kept on changing her evidence and giving conflicting evidence in the hearing” (Board’s Decision, [34]). Considering the totality of the evidence, the Board concluded, amongst other things, that the applicant had fabricated her claims concerning the loan she allegedly took out from the creditor, and it followed that the core factual basis of her claim for non-refoulement protection was not made out (Board’s Decision, [74]-[78]). In any event, the Board was of the view that adequate state protection and suitable options of internal relocation were available to the applicant in order to minimise the risks of harm, if any.

11.  These were factual findings open to the Board on the evidence, and were sufficiently canvassed and considered by the Judge in the Leave Decision at [5]-[10]. We see no basis to interfere.

12.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the Board had acted unlawfully or procedurally unfairly in reaching its decision, or how such decision could be said to be Wednesbury unreasonable.

13.  There is no viable ground of appeal against the Leave Decision. Nor is there merit in the appeal. We dismiss the appeal accordingly.